The Mahablog >> Dear Conspiracy Theorists

[greyl]

The Mahablog >> Dear Conspiracy Theorists

...I am more than cognizant of the remaining mysteries surrounding 9/11 and am open to a wide range of explanations.
The “inside job” cultists, on the other hand, are not open to a wide range of explanations. They’ve made up their minds, and anyone who doesn’t agree with them entirely is (in their view) an idiot and a dupe. If someone were to say, “I think it could have been an inside job, but I’m willing to consider the possibility that it wasn’t,” I could respect that. I still disagree with it, but I respect it. However, the very fact that “inside job” culties are incapable of engaging in two-way discussion of September 11 reveals that something other than dispassionate reasoning is going on.
more

[petgoat]

1. Fallacious overgeneralization. I know a few conspiracy

theorists who think they've got it all figured out.
I don't like them and I avoid them.

Most of the ones I know are the reasonable kind that
maha claims don't exist.

[greyl]

2. She's talking about “inside job” cultists.

How can a specified group be an overgeneralization?
Maybe your error is because of the ambiguously defined conspiracy theorists and “inside job” cultists?

Who do you think the author is talking about here? : "If someone were to say, “I think it could have been an inside job, but I’m willing to consider the possibility that it wasn’t,” I could respect that. I still disagree with it, but I respect it."

This brings up the term Gore Vidal may have coined a few weeks ago: "conspiracy analyst". I think that term means something. There are no real divisions between inside job cultists, conspiracy theorists, and conspiracy analysts - they come in degrees and blend with one another at the edges. Otherwise, it would be impossible to graduate from one group to the next. It's unfortunate that the inside job cultists make things more difficult for us all.

[quickesst]

3. OK...

You're saying that you could respect someone who is a truth-seeker if they are open to the possibility they are wrong. Since I've been viewing this forum, truth-seekers have been called every name in the book, have been demonized by the OTC, and generally lumped into the "crazy" category. And your miffed because truth-seekers aren't more open to your opinions? Maybe, just maybe, a little more respect would be due if every thread started by a certain few people did not start out with someone else's opinion and analysis of what makes a truth-seeker tick. If you have a link to useful information, that's one thing, but the neverending parade of wanna-be shrinks to "prove" truth-seekers are wrong, crazy, delusional, etc. only serves to close the door even tighter on any relevant discussion, as most truth-seekers here are not subject to simplistic influence. Just my opinion. Thanks.
quickesst

[HamdenRice]

4. Great post quickesst

I find it utterly amazing that OCTers accuse participants in the Truth Movement of being close minded.

Mr. Pot, I have the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Kettel.

[William Seger]

6. No, it's not a symmetric situation at all

If 9/11 was an "inside job" then it should certainly be possible to prove it to the satisfaction of a reasonable person, just as it should be possible to prove Bigfoot and ESP if those things exist. It isn't "close-minded" to disbelieve unproven assertions and suppositions. We aren't really talking about a matter of opinion; either 9/11 was an inside job or it wasn't.

Your perception of your critics being close minded appears to be based on your own belief that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but your critics reject your proof out of hand. I'm sorry, but it isn't "close-minded" to argue that what's being offered as proof falls far, far short of that standard.

If you don't understand what I'm getting at, try this thought experiment: Imagine that you have been falsely accused of murder, your prosecuting attorney turns out to be Dylan Avery, and the jury is drawn from the posters on this board.

[HamdenRice]

8. OCTers and OCTabots are too close minded to actually review the evidence

Most of them simply point to the most outlandish theories as what the Truth movement is all about or just call names.

In fact, according to polls, the majority of people in New York believe that the government was complicit or had foreknowledge. This is based on circumstantial evidence.

Your assertion that it should be possible to prove that theory, in the face of the obstruction of the investigation and the proven coverups and omissions of the 9/11 Commission is bizarre and counter factual.

How many OCTers and OCTabots have poured through Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline, a compilation based solely on published mainstream sources. Most simply haven't looked at the evidence, and that shows they are close minded.

[William Seger]

13. Bullshit

> Most of them simply point to the most outlandish theories as what the Truth movement is all about or just call names.

The "outlandish theories" ARE what the "truth movement" is all about! The fact that they are "outlandish" doesn't mean that they aren't true, of course; it simply means that you need solid proof, and you really ought not expect any acceptance at all until you have some.

> In fact, according to polls, the majority of people in New York believe that the government was complicit or had foreknowledge. This is based on circumstantial evidence.

Irrelevant. Let me point out to you again that we're not really talking about a matter of subjective opinion; either 9/11 was an "inside job" or it was not. How many of the people in that poll came to their beliefs by watching videos like Loose Change, In Plane Sight, and Improbably Collapse? Those videos aren't just propaganda -- they aren't just biased and one-sided -- they're the worst kind of propaganda that deliberately uses deception and distortion to make their "case" appear to be far stronger than it is. The bullshit in those videos doesn't suddenly become true if some magic number of people are suckered into believing it. And what's worse, there don't seem to be very many "truth seekers" who care about the bullshit. If it gets people "asking questions" (and ignoring the answers), most "truth seekers" seem to be quite content with that result precisely because it'll improve the numbers they get in polls like that one.

> Your assertion that it should be possible to prove that theory, in the face of the obstruction of the investigation and the proven coverups and omissions of the 9/11 Commission is bizarre and counter factual.

No, it is not "counter factual" except in the delusional minds of conspiracists who believe that the conspiracy is so all-powerful and all-encompassing that they could actually cover up every piece of evidence, and every single person who "knows what really happened" was either in on it, or is willing to be an accessory to mass murder by keeping quiet, or has been intimidated into silence by "them." In your mind, even the very lack of evidence "proves" your case! But that's really yet another "outlandish theory" that also requires some proof, isn't it.

> How many OCTers and OCTabots have poured through Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline, a compilation based solely on published mainstream sources. Most simply haven't looked at the evidence, and that shows they are close minded.

How many? LOTS of people have "looked at the evidence" and apparently found the same thing I have, after spending many, many hours on it: strip out the pointless red herrings, the innuendo, the confirmation bias, the willful ignorance, and the plain ol' bullshit, and there's nothing left that remotely resembles solid, unambiguous proof. Let me say again my point that you dodged: It is NOT "close minded" to disbelieve assertions and suppositions that aren't supported by evidence and facts. Show me a Bigfoot or read my mind with ESP, and if I still don't believe in that stuff, then you can call me close minded.

[HamdenRice]

15. Your rhetoric expertly proves my point -- you are the perfect example

Your post if full of (1) name-calling, (2) factually incorrect statements, (3) conclusory statements that all theories of government complicity are wrong, simply because you say so, and (4) logical inconsistencies.

In other words, you have decided that any theory of government complicty must be wrong and without viewing the evidence work backwards from that position.

quote
The "outlandish theories" ARE what the "truth movement" is all about!

Are all truth theories outlandish? Is the research into the financing of the hijackers by the Pakistani ISI chief, and the ISI chief's meetings in Washington as outlandish as, say, space beams and mini-nukes? Is research into the behavior, histories and identities of the hijackers outlandish? Please give examples, rather than just scream opinions.

quote:
> In fact, according to polls, the majority of people in New York believe that the government was complicit or had foreknowledge. This is based on circumstantial evidence.
Irrelevant

Your initial post says that the truth movement hasn't proven anything to anyone. But a majority of New Yorkers believe in complicity, which is to say, something has been proven to them. Now you claim the fact that something has been proven to a majority of New Yorkers is irrelevant. Do you know how idiotic that argument is? how illogical? And the polls that show New Yorkers believe 9/11 was an inside job were done before the Loose Change phenomenon blew up. How do you know what has convinced the people of New York?

quote:
except in the delusional minds of conspiracists who believe that the conspiracy is so all-powerful and all-encompassing

Who says that the conspiracy is all powerful and all encompassing? Only OCTers and OCTabots. The majority of realistic truth posters here who have speculated about the size of the conspiracy have suggested that it might take as few as two or three people to forestall action on the intelligence that was pouring into the Bush White House. This is typical straw man rhetoric.

quote:
"knows what really happened" was either in on it, or is willing to be an accessory to mass murder by keeping quiet, or has been intimidated into silence by "them." In your mind, even the very lack of evidence "proves" your case

Use the search function and find a post of mine in which I asserted this. Otherwise you should admit you are lying and apologize. Just because you think some one believes this doesn't mean everyone does. By your logic: Hitler was a vegetarian and espoused a vegetable based diet. Therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.


quote:
How many? LOTS of people have "looked at the evidence" and apparently found the same thing I have,

Did you answer the direct question? Have you read the timeline? Do you have an opinion on Rumsfeld's performance of his duties on the morning of 9/11?

quote:
Bigfoot or read my mind with ESP, and if I still don't believe in that stuff, then you can call me close minded.

More bullshit, red-herring, guilt by association. Some people who believe that Bush is completely innocent of 9/11 also believe that Bush has personal conversations with Jesus. That must mean that you believe Bush has personal conversations with Jesus.

Your post is perhaps the worst, most illogical, cheap-rhetoric filled crap I've read from an OCTer or OCTabot since this forum was established. Congrats!

Now it will be interesting to see you do what most OCTabots do -- not respond directly.

[William Seger]

17. Sorry you wasted your time

> In other words, you have decided that any theory of government complicty must be wrong and without viewing the evidence work backwards from that position.

I stopped reading right there. Maybe I'll come back later and read the rest of it. Maybe not.

[HamdenRice]

18. Ha ha ha ha !!! That's just what I predicted! I'm so way cool!

You should get to the end of the post, because I predicted exactly what you did!

Gosh OCTers and OCTabots are perfectly predictable!

[William Seger]

21. Oooo, maniacal laughter; very convincing

Yes, I stopped reading right here: "In other words, you have decided that any theory of government complicty must be wrong and without viewing the evidence work backwards from that position."

Why should I waste time with the rest of it when your first statement is 180 degrees away from what I said -- and apparently intentionally so? I'm not required to play rhetorical games with you. But I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I have now read the remainder of your post, if only to see your "prediction." And whadaya know, my "prediction" was also correct; it was a total waste of time. Apparently you didn't quite understand the topic of this thread; you apparently didn't understand a word of what I said; you apparently have no clue why I said it, so you had a knee-jerk response; you try to discredit what I said with totally specious assertions and more irrelevancies; and your pretense of being some sort of master logician is disproved by your own writing. It also appears that you would prefer to hijack the thread and take into territory you find more palitable to your own tastes than the original topic. I suggest you start your own thread.

But if you insist on a direct answer to your specific question about Paul Thompson's work, I'll gladly answer that since it proves how wrong you are. Yes, I have read that, and I've also watched Press For Truth, and I even commented on a thread here that I thought it was pretty good. You presume far too much, but I guess that comes with the territory, huh.

If you want to try again to honestly address what I said, have at it and maybe I'll read it. Otherwise, game over.

[HamdenRice]

25. And you also failed ...

to address a single point in my post criticizing your post, point by point. Also predictable.

[William Seger]

35. Yes, I did

And I'll be happy to do so again: "Apparently you didn't quite understand the topic of this thread; you apparently didn't understand a word of what I said; you apparently have no clue why I said it, so you had a knee-jerk response; you try to discredit what I said with totally specious assertions and more irrelevancies; and your pretense of being some sort of master logician is disproved by your own writing. It also appears that you would prefer to hijack the thread and take into territory you find more palitable to your own tastes than the original topic."

Did you catch it that time?

[HamdenRice]

46. How about one at a time

To repeat:

quote
The "outlandish theories" ARE what the "truth movement" is all about!

Are all truth theories outlandish? Is the research into the financing of the hijackers by the Pakistani ISI chief, and the ISI chief's meetings in Washington as outlandish as, say, space beams and mini-nukes? Is research into the behavior, histories and identities of the hijackers outlandish? Please give examples, rather than just scream opinions.


So again, I ask, are all theories of government complicity outlandish? Do you have any opinion on Pakistan's role?

[William Seger]

75. How about stick to the topic, or start your own thread.

Here's the first line of the blog posting from the OP, which pertains at least indirectly to your question:

I am more than cognizant of the remaining mysteries surrounding 9/11 and am open to a wide range of explanations.

Okay, I agree completely with that statement. But now, here is the subject of the OP:

The “inside job” cultists, on the other hand, are not open to a wide range of explanations. They’ve made up their minds, and anyone who doesn’t agree with them entirely is (in their view) an idiot and a dupe.

You accused "OCTers" of being equally "close minded" if they aren't willing to accept unsubstantiated speculations and suppositions without evidence, and I called you on it. The situation is not at all symmetric. You tried to support your nonsensical accusation by falsely claiming that "OCTers" are so close minded that they won't even look at your "evidence." That simply isn't true, so your point fails. Then, more smoke and attempted diversion:

> Are all truth theories outlandish? Is the research into the financing of the hijackers by the Pakistani ISI chief, and the ISI chief's meetings in Washington as outlandish as, say, space beams and mini-nukes? Is research into the behavior, histories and identities of the hijackers outlandish? Please give examples, rather than just scream opinions.

But that's just a non sequitur, since you didn't present any theories. How am I supposed to judge whether or not your own theories about financing and hijackers and Pakistan's role are "outlandish" when you didn't offer any? Do you think innuendo should be sufficient for me to become an "inside job cultist?" If you have a theory and you have evidence, then start another thread. But here, if you want to try to refute what I actually said, you might try to demonstrate that "research" into those topics is really what the "truth movement is all about," rather than the "outlandish theories" that have come to characterize it. Good luck with that.

Want to play again?

[HamdenRice]

85. I thought you are so well informed that you would know the ISI "theory"

If you have done all this research and come to your own conclusions about all the theories of government complicity, how can you not know about the theories surrounding Pakistan's ISI? I didn't realize that I would have to present such a well documented theory to someone who is so well informed. So here it is.

It is really a questioning of the official theory: How can the role of Pakistan's intelligence agency be reconciled with the official theory?

It was reported in mainstream media after 9/11 that the head of Pakistan's very powerful intelligence agency, Inter-Service Intelligence (or ISI), Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, ordered that $100,000 be wire transferred to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta. This order was carried out by ISI operative Saeed Sheikh from the United Arab Emirates. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably failed to pursue the source of the hijacker's financing and failed to connect Pakistan and its intelligence service to the attacks.

Moreover, around September 6, 2001, Lt. Gen. Ahmad, a financier of the terrorist attacks, flew to Washington DC where he met with the National Security Council (Condi claims not to have been present), the CIA, Defense Department and State Department. On the morning of 9/11, this financier of the hijackers was having breakfast with Rep. Porter Goss (self proclaimed former CIA agent, Republican representative from the Florida district where the Atta operated, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and soon to be director of the CIA) and Sen. Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Goss later explained that the breakfast meeting concerned terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. There are also mainstream reports that Goss and Graham had spent time in Pakistan in August 2001 in urgent meetings with Gen. Ahmad. Later in 2001, after the attacks, Lt. Gen. Ahmad was sacked by Pakistan for his alleged ties to the Taliban. Saeed Sheikh later was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Daniel Pearl, but inexplicably the sentence has never been carried out.

How can you reconcile the official story with the activities of Lt. Gen. Ahmad? How can no one in the government have had advance warning of the attacks if they spent much of August and early September meeting with one of the financiers of the attacks, discussing terrorism generated from Afghanistan.

As for your bizarre suggestion that this subthread is unrelated to the OP, let me try to explain it to you. The OP suggests that people involved in the truth movement are close minded cultists. My post, a response to quickest, is that quite the contrary, members of the truth movement are very open minded -- maybe a little too open minded sometimes, I might add -- and that it is the OCTers who have everything wrapped up in their minds and decided, and therefore are close minded to examining any evidence that conflicts with their predetermined official theory.

[William Seger]

87. That's your "inside job" theory? Jeez....

> How can you reconcile the official story with the activities of Lt. Gen. Ahmad? How can no one in the government have had advance warning of the attacks if they spent much of August and early September meeting with one of the financiers of the attacks, discussing terrorism generated from Afghanistan.

When precisely did Gen. Ahmad become part of the BushCo? Why should I suppose that, even assuming that the Ahmad story from Indian intelligence is accurate, that Ahmad would have told anyone in Washington about a 9/11 plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings? (Or what is you theory, really? That someone in the BushCo ordered Ahmad to arrange the plot?) But yes, in the absence of any evidence and any reason to think Ahmad would be stupid enough to spill the beans, or that Ahmad was really a pawn of BushCo, I would certainly call that an "outlandish theory." What "conflicts with their predetermined official theory" about this pure speculation and innuendo?

Okay, I have (again) falsified your claim that I'm too close minded to examine your "evidence." And you still haven't come close to demonstrating that if someone comes up with actual evidence that Ahmad actually did tell anyone in Washington about the attacks, or that they were in it together, the "OCTers" would be too close minded to even examine this evidence.

Want to play again?

[HamdenRice]

88. Now that would be bright thing for an intelligence chief to do

Do you really believe that an intelligence chief, well aware of American intelligence capabilities, especially signal intelligence capabilities, who had funded a massive attack on the United States, including on Washington, would risk flying to Washington to meet with defense and intelligence officials as the attacks unfolded? That would be nearly suicidal. There are many inferences that could be drawn, but until Ahmad and the people he met with are called to testify under oath, we really cannot know. But we do know that these documented facts are simply inconsistent with the official theory which says that the terrorists had no state sponsors.

You throw in a lot of irrelevant drivel and straw man arguments, once again. No one except you has accused Gen. Ahmad of being part of the Bush administration.

The point is that the official story cannot be reconciled with the fact that the financier of the attacks was in urgent discussions for nearly a month preceeding the attacks with US defense and intelligence officials about terrorism generated in Afghanistan (which can only mean Osama bin Laden).

The fact that you don't think that is an anomaly shows a stupifying lack of curiosity and astounding inability to fit facts to your own theory.

As for the full theory about the ISI, the point that seems to escape you and most OCTabots is that the truth movement asks questions rather than robotically spouting a full fledged theory. It seeks a new investigation because of anomalies such as this. Most of us do not have a complete theory, because we have open minds and are developing evidence.

You on the other hand show classic signs of being simply unable or unwilling to process new information that is inconsistent with the official theory to which you cling.

If documented facts are irreconcilable with the official theory, then the official theory must be wrong.

[William Seger]

89. "Official theory?" "Documented facts?"

"Stupifying lack of curiosity?" On, no, in fact you've got me very curious about this:

> But we do know that these documented facts are simply inconsistent with the official theory which says that the terrorists had no state sponsors... If documented facts are irreconcilable with the official theory, then the official theory must be wrong.

First, I haven't seen any "official theory" which says that "terrorists had no state sponsors." Wasn't that the official justification for invading Afghanistan? Don't we officially accuse Iran and other states of sponsoring terrorism? I mean, I can't seem to find that claim in my Official Conspiracy Theory Clingers Guide, but I may have an out-of-date copy. And if that's the "official theory," I really need to know about it, just so's I'll know what I'm not allowed to disagree with, ya know.:eyes:

I think you're considerably overstating your case that it's a "documented fact" that Pakistan was also a "state sponsor," but I think it's a pretty good "theory" that there are a LOT of Pakistanis who support al Qaeda. As well as Saudis, for that matter. Problem is, I'm not seeing where you're tying any of that into any "inside job" theories with any "documented facts" -- nothing but speculation and innuendo. Just where the hell do you get off accusing me of "an astounding inability to fit facts to your own theory" when you clearly don't have any such facts? And where the hell are you getting this psychic ability to predict how people are going to react if and when any such facts are found? Why are you so stupidly trying to imply that if such facts ARE found, nobody is allowed to change the "official theory."

I hate to mention it again (well, not really), but you are doing a really lousy job of proving your claim that "OCTers" are so close minded that they won't even examine your evidence, and that they have some robotic devotion to some "official theory" which must be the only reason they won't accept "inside job" assertions and speculations, when I've told you quite clearly, several times, what it will take to make those "theories" credible: evidence. Hollow flummery about my "irrelevant drivel and straw man arguments" might make you feel better, but doesn't hide the weakness of what you're trying to pass off as an argument. Yet, you just keep asserting it over and over. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the reason you're having a hard time making that argument is that it's just a delusional rationalization. Fair warning: One more time, and you get the Dead Horse smiley, and no more debating game.

[greyl]

92. Clarify something.

You said "The OP suggests that people involved in the truth movement are close minded cultists."

Well, that's true, however wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The OP suggests that there is a segment of people involved in the truth movement that are closed minded cultists"?

[HamdenRice]

99. Well, that's the entire point isn't it?

OCTabots almost always paint the entire community of truth seekers with the same broad brush, don't they? If one of us discusses the documented connections between Pakistani intelligence and the hijackers, or the eyewitness accounts of the hijackers' strange behavior in Florida, the response of OCTabots is almost always the same: alien lizard overlords, space lasers and mini-nukes, no planes and holograms. OCTers and OCTabots believe that anyone who questions the official story is a close minded cultist.

[William Seger]

100. Are you now, or have you ever been, an "inside job cultist"?

Do you, or do you not, have an open mind on the possibility that 9/11 was NOT an inside job? If you do, then the OP clearly wasn't talking about you, was it?

That was the "entire point" of the thread, actually. Not that you think "OCTers" paint conspiracists with too broad a brush, so conspiracists are allowed to do the same thing with stuff like, "OCTers and OCTabots believe that anyone who questions the official story is a close minded cultist."

If you would like to start another thread, say "9/11 Theories That HamdenRice Doesn't Believe," that might be interesting. Maybe.

[greyl]

105. It's difficult to believe that those

yelping about the OP have actually read the article the OP refers to. Not a good sign.

Before I start quoting Cockburn: Of course, it was a conspiracy that brought down the World Trade Center towers, and all the butt-covering that’s gone on since amounts to conspiracies inside conspiracies. But there are conspiracies, and there are conspiracy theories, and then there are pathological conspiracy theories. Richard Hofstadter said back in 1963: (I’m adding some paragraphs breaks to make it more readable).

What distinguishes the paranoid style is not, then, the absence of verifiable facts (though it is occasionally true that in his extravagant passion for facts the paranoid occasionally manufactures them), but rather the curious leap in imagination that is always made at some critical point in the recital of events. John Robison’s tract on the Illuminati followed a pattern that has been repeated for over a century and a half. For page after page he patiently records the details he has been able to accumulate about the history of the Illuminati. Then, suddenly, the French Revolution has taken place, and the Illuminati have brought it about. What is missing is not veracious information about the organization, but sensible judgment about what can cause a revolution.

The plausibility the paranoid style for those who find it plausible lies, in good measure, in this appearance of the more careful, conscientious and seemingly coherent application to detail, the laborious accumulation of what can be taken as convincing evidence for the most fantastic conclusions, the careful preparation for the big leap from the undeniable to the unbelievable.

The singular thing about all this laborious work is that the passion for factual evidence does not, as in most intellectual exchanges, have the effect of putting the paranoid spokesman into effective two-way communication with the world outside his group–least of all with those who doubt his views. He has little real hope that his evidence will convince a hostile world. His effort to amass it has rather the quality of a defensive act which shuts off his receptive apparatus and protects him from having to attend to disturbing considerations that do not fortify his ideas. He has all the evidence he needs; he is not a receiver, he is a transmitter.
(Richard Hofstadter, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” as reprinted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 37-38)

http://www.mahablog.com/2006/10/05/dear-conspiracy-theorists/

[frylock]

19. I stopped reading right there.

yet it's the truthers that are close minded. Damn you're funny!

[mhatrw]

34. Exhibit A in closemindedness. n/t

[William Seger]

102. Point by point

Well, since there doesn't seem to be anything interesting going on, and you seemed to be so disappointed not to have each of your criticisms addressed, let's do that.

The Pakistani ISI "theory" has already been addressed. I take it that you don't yet have enough evidence to actually formulate any specific theory, just suspicions. Fine; then I take it that you'll agree that that doesn't even qualify as a 9/11 conspiracy theory yet.

> quote:
> In fact, according to polls, the majority of people in New York believe that the government was complicit or had foreknowledge. This is based on circumstantial evidence.
Irrelevant

Your initial post says that the truth movement hasn't proven anything to anyone. But a majority of New Yorkers believe in complicity, which is to say, something has been proven to them. Now you claim the fact that something has been proven to a majority of New Yorkers is irrelevant. Do you know how idiotic that argument is? how illogical? And the polls that show New Yorkers believe 9/11 was an inside job were done before the Loose Change phenomenon blew up. How do you know what has convinced the people of New York?

No, my initial post DID NOT say "that the truth movement hasn't proven anything to anyone," and it's still right up there if anyone cares to read it more closely than you apparently did. But first, as has been pointed out numerous times, that poll question is so vaguely worded as to be meaningless. I also happen to believe that BushCo "had foreknowledge" that an attack was planned, so I think I would honestly answer "yes" to that question. How specific was that foreknowledge? The poll doesn't ask that, does it. But apparently, based on that poll, you would include me as someone who "believe{s} 9/11 was an inside job!" As far as I'm concerned, that's proof positive that your "logic" has led you astray. Second, the issue I talked about was whether or not the "9/11 truth movement" has proved anything at all yet; not whether or not they had managed to use distortion and deception to raise a lot of suspicions with a lot of people who visit "truth" sites and watch videos on YouTube, but perhaps haven't visited any of the numerous debunking sites. Polls have zip to do with what I said.

> quote:
except in the delusional minds of conspiracists who believe that the conspiracy is so all-powerful and all-encompassing

Who says that the conspiracy is all powerful and all encompassing? Only OCTers and OCTabots. The majority of realistic truth posters here who have speculated about the size of the conspiracy have suggested that it might take as few as two or three people to forestall action on the intelligence that was pouring into the Bush White House. This is typical straw man rhetoric.

Hey, if the shoe doesn't fit, I'm not forcing you to wear it. If you are not a person who believes that the lack of evidence proves a conspiracy, then good for you. And since you haven't yet made it clear to me what HamdenRice's conspiracy theories are -- you just don't want me to put you in the mainstream of the "movement" -- I can't really comment on how large your conspiracies would need to be. But let's go back to your comment that I was addressing: "Your assertion that it should be possible to prove that theory, in the face of the obstruction of the investigation and the proven coverups and omissions of the 9/11 Commission is bizarre and counter factual." Yes, I believe it should be possible, at least in theory, to prove any conspiracies you want to advance. You want to say that it's possible that some conspiracies can be successfully covered up. Well, that's a trivial truth. The issue at hand is, why should we give credibility to any particular theories that aren't proved, which at this point happens to include all the "inside job" theories that the "movement" has advanced? See the difference? I'm not claiming that the "official theory" is any kind of "truth"; I'm saying that the "official theory" is the only one supported by solid evidence, which most conspiracists dismiss as being faked. Yes, HamdenRice, things happen that you will never be able to prove; there are "truths" that you and I will never know; but that does not give us the right to promote supposition and speculation to be "truth," just to satisfy our desire for truth. Do you honestly not know what I'm getting at?

>
quote:
"knows what really happened" was either in on it, or is willing to be an accessory to mass murder by keeping quiet, or has been intimidated into silence by "them." In your mind, even the very lack of evidence "proves" your case

Use the search function and find a post of mine in which I asserted this. Otherwise you should admit you are lying and apologize. Just because you think some one believes this doesn't mean everyone does. By your logic: Hitler was a vegetarian and espoused a vegetable based diet. Therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.

Hypocrite.

>
quote:
How many? LOTS of people have "looked at the evidence" and apparently found the same thing I have,

Did you answer the direct question? Have you read the timeline? Do you have an opinion on Rumsfeld's performance of his duties on the morning of 9/11?

Yes, I've read the timeline and I've seen Press For Truth. Yes, I think Rumsfeld is completely incompetent as a Defense Secretary, and likely getting senile too. How does any of that add up to proof of an "inside job," which happens to be the issue at hand? Start another thread if you want to talk about that.

>
quote:
Bigfoot or read my mind with ESP, and if I still don't believe in that stuff, then you can call me close minded.

More bullshit, red-herring, guilt by association. Some people who believe that Bush is completely innocent of 9/11 also believe that Bush has personal conversations with Jesus. That must mean that you believe Bush has personal conversations with Jesus.

That is so irrelevant to what I said as to be hard to comment on. It in certainly NOT "bullshit, red-herring, guilt by association" to point out that rational people don't believe improbably things without some convincing proof, which is the very issue that you have so busily attempted to dodge through this very long and boring post.

>

Your post is perhaps the worst, most illogical, cheap-rhetoric filled crap I've read from an OCTer or OCTabot since this forum was established. Congrats!

Back atcha, dude. Either that, or as I said in my previous response, you completely misunderstood the topic of the thread, what I said, and why I was saying it -- which would not be my problem.

Want to play again?

[softwarevotingtrail]

20. That's it, trust your government to tell you the truth

The government cobbled its story together within mere hours of the attack and its remained essentially unchanged since then. If we're going to start tossing around words like "delusional" about, I'm going to call a spade a spade: It's delusional to take this official account at face value given the evidence at hand.

[greyl]

39. There's huge difference between straw argument and calling

a spade a spade. You are using a straw argument.

[mhatrw]

32. Exhibit B in closemindedness. n/t

[quickesst]

97. If every....

criminal investigation did not have to occur, and the evidence of every crime were self-evident, then there would be no need for those investigations in the first place. Crimes are uncovered, solved, and those responsible made to pay through open, honest, and dilligent investigation. Since that has not occurred in this case, but has been replaced with a true whitewash, it is easy for those who cheerlead the Bush administrations fairytale to say to ordinary people without the benefit of the power to convene an investigation, "where's your rock-solid, conclusive, unarguable proof? I say to the Bush cheerleaders, where is yours? The logical answer is, we won't know until there has been a true, open, and independent investigation into 9/11. Thanks.
quickesst

[William Seger]

103. You want another investigation?

You're "just asking qustions?" Hey, that's cool with me. I've got a lot of question about 9/11, too. But the issue in this thread is, would you accept the results of another investigation that didn't find any "inside job" evidence? Are you "just asking questions" but not willing to accept certain answers? I don't quite understand why so many people on this thread want to change the subject.

[quickesst]

114. Of course...

If, and that's big IF, a truly independent investigation were conducted, answering all the questions the 9/11 truth movement were asking, and answering those questions to the mutual satisfaction of those on both sides of the issue, and if that investigation proved there was no government involvement, mihop or lihop, then one would have to logically conclude that the ct group was wrong. I would ask the same of you. If the truly independent investigation were to conclude that govenment involvement occurred to facilitate the attacks, would you accept it? I would surmise the answer to be yes, which leads me to the point of all the threads, investigations, etc. We will not be able to come to a conclusion until an independent investigation is performed. Anyone who knows anything about this issue knows the 9/11 commission report was either a sham of a whitewash, or a very poorly conducted investigation, and perhaps both. Unless one does not want to get to the actual truth, I would have to conclude that our goals are the same, and to reach that goal, action has to be taken. We can debate, argue, ridicule, and so on til we're blue in the face, and we will never prove anything conclusively. Thanks.
quickesst

[petgoat]

36. try this modifcarion to your thought experiment:

You're accused of the murder of your wealthy elderly aunt

Your businesses were failing, and the resulting inheritance allowed you to
indulge your ambitions to greatly expand your businesses

You used your local influence to try to prevent an investigation of her death

You took her body to a mafia-connected crematorium in the next state before
anyone knew she was dead

You bought the local newspaper after some articles critical of your handling
of the matter appeared, and you fired the editor


Dylan Avery makes a movie recounting all this, and adding a few shaky allegations
about your sex life and past business practices

Internet busybodies call for a new investigation

[William Seger]

104. "a few shaky allegations"?

That sorta shut down my thought experiment, but you seem to be also dodging the tread topic. If all you're asking for is a "new investigation," are you or are you not willing to accept a "no inside job" conclusion? If you are, then you must not be an "inside job cultist," huh.

[petgoat]

106. OCT apologists always fall back on the

"You have no proof and therefore we need not investigate" argument.

are you or are you not willing to accept a "no inside job" conclusion?

It strikes me as quite revealing that it seems to escape you that this of course
depends on the nature and extent of the investigation.

If you are, then you must not be an "inside job cultist," huh.

I am not, as I explained in an earlier post, an inside job cultist. Cultists
make me nervous whether they're Moonies, Scientologists, neocons, communists,
health-food fanatics.

If your point is "She is not talking about reasonable people like you, petgoat, and
85% of your Truthist friends; she is talking only about the 15% of Truthists who
are dogmatic wackos" then there seems no reason to have this discussion at all.

But the fact is, by titling her piece "Dear Conspiracy Theorists" instead of
"On Dogmatic Wackos" and by conflating "The Paranoid Style" with comments on
CD theorists, she seems to be tossing more than the dogmatic fringe into the
cultist box.

[greyl]

33. It doesn't matter how amazed you are.

The inside job cultists will continue to prove the point of the OP.

Do you admit a possibility that 9/11 wasn't an inside job? Yes or no.

[mhatrw]

37. Of course. Do you admit the possibility that it was? n/t

[greyl]

42. Really? & was I asking you?

I used to be convinced that it was an inside job.

[mhatrw]

53. You & Maha appeared to be asking everyone who doubts the OCT.

The question still stands. How typical that you are trying to avoid answering it directly. Do you or do you not currently admit the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job? Please answer directly.

[greyl]

59. Feel free to edit your post when you find the answer in this thread.

Based on your statements, I'm convinced you aren't comprehending what is being suggested at The Mahablog.
See ya.

[mhatrw]

68. Do you think 9/11 could have been an inside job or not?

Yes or no.

[greyl]

93. Yes, it's possible.

I just haven't seen evidence of it and am dismayed by the preposterous "evidence" that people who cover themselves in the Truth Movement flag take as conclusive proof.

[wildbilln864]

40. Yes...

I admit there is the possibility that 911 was not an inside job! Yet circumstances and coverups of certain information lead me to believe otherwise! Do you agree that we should know all the answers surrounding what and how it happened?
And one other easy question. Do you believe it's possible it was an inside job?

[greyl]

44. You're contradicting yourself.

Do you still see a possibility that it was Islamist terrorists, or have you swallowed the pill?

[wildbilln864]

45. Contradicting myself? If you say so but...

answer the question please! Is it possible that it's an inside job?

[greyl]

49. Yes, I say so, and

yes, it's possible. Just like it's possible that there's a bit of truth amongst all the myths of astrology. I just haven't seen evidence for it yet.

[wildbilln864]

52. well, I agree there isn't much evidence yet...

but I see some circumstancial evidence, but if there are unanswered questions. Don't we need a independant investigation to find out exactly how and why it happened?

[mhatrw]

54. Nor is there any hard evidence of the OCT. n/t

[greyl]

56. There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus

on what most likely occurred on 9/11. Just like the overwhelming consensus on global warming and evolution.

[wildbilln864]

58. consensus....

doesn't constitute evidence!

[greyl]

60. You're missing my point.

What does overwhelming consensus of the non-"official" community mean to you?

[HamdenRice]

65. False premise -- there is not an overwhelming consensus

The best measure of consensus is the series of Zogby polls on 9/11:

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231

US government and 9/11 Commission are NOT covering up 48%
US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42
Not sure 10

The attacks were thoroughly investigated 47%
Reinvestigate the attacks 45
Not sure 8

In other words, almost as many people think that the 9/11 Commission is a cover up as think it is accurate.

That is not an overwhelming consensus at all.

[greyl]

67. Wrong.

Where do you get the idea that "cover-up" equals "inside job"? Bad mistake.

You're trying to co-opt the jargon from my side of the argument.

Nevertheless, I wasn't talking about a general public consensus, I was talking about a consensus in the science, sociology, theology, and political communities - the experts in all of the relevant fields.

[HamdenRice]

71. Your own words prove you wrong

You wrote:

There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus
on what most likely occurred on 9/11.

The only way to interpret this is that "what most likely occurred" is explained in the 9/11 Commission report.

But half of the public believes that the report is not an explanation of what most likely occurred, but was an attempt to coverup what most likely occurred.

Where did I assert that the poll revealed that people believe 9/11 was an inside job? Please point out that sentence in my post or say you just made that part up.

The poll suggests that people do not know what happened but know we have been lied to and want to know what actually happened.

There is no overwhelming consensus and your post to that effect stated a false premise.

[greyl]

76. No, they don't. Pay attention.

1. "cover-up" does not equal "inside job"
2. the overwhelming consensus of "what most likely happened" was not gleaned from the 9/11 Commission Report, in the science community or otherwise.
3. The topic you jumped into was ""inside job" cultists" - I can't be faulted for the fact that your poll is irrelevant to "inside job" cultists, please forgive me for assuming you were trying to remain on topic.

[HamdenRice]

86. changing your assertions in the middle of a debate?

You said there is an overwhelming consensus about what happened on 9/11. You did not limit it to the scientific or any other community.

There is not an overwhelming consensus about what happened on 9/11. You are dead wrong, and the polls demonstrate this.

And this has nothing to do with a separate issue -- whether 9/11 was entirely or partly an inside job. You're bringing it up is irrelevant and a purposeful distraction from being shown to have made up a phoney premise.

The question is: is there overwhelming consensus about what happened on 9/11. There isn't. You are wrong

On edit: Since when do OCTers and OCTabots believe that they have to stay narrowly on the topic of an OP. You guys are famous for brining in all kinds of irrelevant drivel to every post about 9/11.

As for this thread, it is perfectly responsive to your assertion -- the sub thread you, yourself began by asserting that there is overwhelming consensus about what happened on 9/11.

LOL! Sometimes you are so off, you are funny.

[greyl]

91. No, I don't think you ever understood them.

One reason why posters believe it's necessary to stay on topic is because straying from the topic is unproductive. Like in this case.

Speaking of Inside Job, wildbilln864 said "there isn't much evidence yet".
To which mhatrw replied, "Nor is there any hard evidence of the OCT."
Then, I said "There is an absolutely overwhelming consensus on what most likely occurred on 9/11.", equating the "OCT" with the story that has an overwhelming consensus, i.e. 19 Islamists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them in PA, WTC 1 & 2, and the Pentagon. No missiles, no controlled demo, no star wars beams.
Got it?
The story which has an overwhelming consensus is the story that CTists of all stripes insist is not true. They are in denial of the truth of it, but not that it exists. Until your last post.

Apparently, you're still making an error of equivocation with the terms "cover-up" and "inside job".

[mhatrw]

69. I didn't say anything about a consensus.

Do you know what logical fallacy you were using when you changed the subject from evidence to consensus?

[greyl]

94. Do most lay people believe the basic aspects of the OCT?

Have you noticed a consensus among scientists, civil engineers, law enforcement on the scene, firefighters on the scene, and other witnesses of the events of 9/11? Wouldn't you say they believe the OCT?

OCTists are those with the overwhelming consensus, and they have - by far - the strongest evidence.
You know how CTists so frequently call "fake evidence!"? That's because there's so much evidence for them to be in denial of.

[mhatrw]

108. Wrong. There is no strong evidence, fake or otherwise, for the OCT.

As for the supposed consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[greyl]

110. I don't think you understand what consensus means, nor

what Chomsky is saying.

Among both the general population and experts in the relevant fields, there is consensus on the basic facts of 9/11.
Those experts are who the so called "9/11 Truth Movement" are arguing against.

[William Seger]

112. Wrong. Read the 9/11 Commission report appendices

[wildbilln864]

57. exactly...

and if there's confusion or doubt about any of the alledged highjackers, then it needs clearing up!
Where's the scientific explanation of wtc7?
How did the Secret service know Bush and themselves and those children would be safe to stay around for at least another half hour with supposedly highjacked planes flying and crashing anywhere on 911?

[quickesst]

98. Not really...

that great, since it takes little to point out the obvious. Who's next, Dr. Phil?:silly: Thanks.
quickesst

[greyl]

28. You're confusing the terms "truth seeker" & "Truth-seeker" and

giving the side you identify with undue credit.

most truth-seekers here are not subject to simplistic influence.

Logic is simplistic. Conspiracism is fantastic. You don't need to tell me that CTists are rarely moved by logic.

[mhatrw]

41. You don't need to tell me that OTC defenders rely on

facile attack-the-messenger strawman generalizations. But for some reason you did anyway.

[greyl]

63. Show me where I did what you accuse me of. nt

[mhatrw]

70. "You don't need to tell me that CTists are rarely moved by logic."

But I think you knew that.

[greyl]

82. How is that a

"facile attack-the-messenger strawman generalization"?

[mhatrw]

109. Let's see. By definition? n/t

[RedSock]

16. overgeneralization

How can a specified group be an overgeneralization?

How can attributing a description to a specified group be anything but an overgeneralization?

A rational person would never say "All Americans act like ....." or "all black people are ........"

[greyl]

24. Nah.

Inside job cultist is much more specialized term than all Americans.
The author of the piece devised the term inside job cultist, so we'll have to go on the definition they provide. I think it's apt.

[mhatrw]

43. Exactly, just like Kramer wasn't talking about all black people! n/t

[petgoat]

38. "How can a specified group be an overgeneralization?"

The title of the piece is not "Dear Inside Job Cultists."

It's "Dear Conspiracy Theorists," a broadly specified group.

[greyl]

51. You need to consider more than the title.

Specifically, the part about inside job cultists.

[petgoat]

61. If I entitle a piece "Dear Christians" and follow with

an analysis of texts about the neurotic character of religious
fanatics, people will rightly assume that I am calling all
Christians religious fanatics.

[greyl]

62. If in that piece you were to begin using the term

"Right-wing Christian fundamentalist", I'd bet the left-wing Christians would understand they didn't fit into that definition.

[wildbilln864]

64. exactly, with such obvious...

bias, who can take it seriously.

[elias7]

5. just as the official story cultists are incapable of discussion as well

I would like to hope most of us reside somewhere in between, open to truth, open to a position change

[softwarevotingtrail]

7. Define your terms, who are "the cultists"? who are "they"?

These sorts of broad brush attacks against "types" of people are shallow from the start.

Many, many people, people who don't have agendas (i.e. the "good" of this political party or that political party); who has looked closely at the evidence at hand and perused the government's own alleged investigation of these tragic events (the 9/11 Commission Report, deemed a "white wash" by none other than Harper's Magazine"); are absolutely clear that something here is amiss.

The Pentagon has a "black budget" of tens of billions of dollars a year, little groups of people toiling away in the catacoms of that building with a blank check and no accountability. God only knows what they're cooking up in there. The president prides himself on being a "hands-off" (aka lazy) manager. Former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that from the very beginning of his adminisration, Bush was intent on "getting" Saddam. Condi Rice said the president told her he was "tired of swatting at flies."

He didn't need to know about all of the nasty details. What did the Nixon people call it? "Modified limited hang-out"?

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. I think this is a good point

I think we want to avoid thinking about the hard problems. Medicare: hard problem. Influenza pandemic: hard problem. Poverty, infant mortality, global warming, decline of biodiversity, decline of education, dead forests, dead oceans, malaria, drought, the rise of China, the descent of Africa -- they're all bewildering and scary. We can't get a handle on them, and we're not sure that a handle even exists, and yet we know, we know, that someone ought to start paying attention.

[softwarevotingtrail]

12. So suspicion about 9-11 culpability is "wishful thinking?"

I've noticed that many defenders of the official conspiracy theory (that 19 arabs armed with boxcutters were able to pierce the most secure airspace in the world) poo-poo the Truth Movement as stemming from a natural human desire to create some sense of artifical order amid the chaos.

Aside from our sworn enemies, who ON EARTH would actually *want* to believe that elements within our own government were responsible for what happened that dreadful day? What sort of comfort does that scenerio bring to ANYONE? It's a distasteful nightmare. There is no comfort at all.

Making a stink about the 9/11 deceptions and inconsistencies is not a fruitless act. If indeed any U.S. citizens are culpable here, these criminals must now understand that they'll never be able to get away with such a monumental crime and coverup ever again without being watched. That seems pretty damn important to me.

[mogster]

10. It's just like Iraq with some people

You know, the lingo they use. Like 'cultists', 'secterian violence', 'conspiracy theorists', or for that matter, the new iconic democratic terms, like 'exporting democracy', 'liberating Iraq', or for that matter, the 'freedom of speech', like we have in Scandinavia. A new word that doesn't mean anything in resemblance to what it used to mean, but can be used as a weapon. Conspiracy theorists or cultists is used the same way; not as a term which in any way describe the target, but as a smear to help further their own theory.

This:
"If someone were to say, “I think it could have been an inside job, but I’m willing to consider the possibility that it wasn’t,” I could respect that."

is just bullshit. Like the Norwegian journo's on the matter of publishing the Muhammed cartoons; the Norwegian muslims had few problems with the publication (their statement to the whole affair prior to publication was 'It's sad'), it was the journo's that was fanatically taken into extremist-land by influence of Christian extremists, and as one 'stood up for freedom'. It backfired heavily on them when things took off to another level, and they never recovered. Their 'cultism' is visible everyday now by the commitment they took on by supporting the publication, because they can't retract that publication, nor can they go back to normal and pretend it never happened. So they keep propping up the story, while looking increasingly silly to anyone who have a shred of insight. In a future perspective where we proceed towards openness and truth - disclosure - they'll fall, hard. It's just to wait, really.

The same is what you see here. There's no 'cult', but an open investigation. It's freedom of thought. The 'conspiracy theorists' have no problem in accepting the opposition and do a free debate, but you can feel the pain of the OCT'ers every time a new crack in the official story appears.
Subsequently, they need to use 'cultists' and 'conspiracy theorists' to make the thin official story appear more credible.

I subscribe exactly to the sentiments of the quoted sentence. I don't know, I'm too far away to really make any investigation of my own, and I'm open for suggestions both ways. But if I ask questions, I'm just right there branded as a 'conspiracy theorist'.
I've lived with this out of the corner of my eye for five years now, five years of such treason and deceit in high levels of government that if you had suggested to me the mere possibility for this to be happening during the 90's, I'd laughed my ass off.
I'd a-called you a 'conspiracy theorist' or a madman, back then.

If you want people to not believe in 'conspiracy theories', produce a reality where conspiracies isn't probable, yeah, even likely.

Problem is; you can't.

[vincent_vega_lives]

11. Conversations at Ground Zero

http://www.counterpunch.org/jw09222006.html

Good Article

[savemefromdumbya]

14. Trouble is, is that it was both an inside and outside job

so.......

[wildbilln864]

22. more bullshit!

once again, just opinion. Ignoring the possibilities!

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Ignoring the possibilities...

I ignore the possiblity that aliens from Alpha Centauri shot down the towers from their secret moon base. Is that all right, in your opinion?

[HamdenRice]

26. Is that the only theory of complicity you are familiar with?

It sure sounds like it. Why is this kind of "theory" the only ones that OCTabots will engage?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. I'm just exploring parameters, Hamden.

The good gentleman slammed Maha for discounting possibilities. I was wondering if there were any possibilities that could be discarded prima facie.

[wildbilln864]

27. get a grip!

nobody here said that but youI didn't say that.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I'm not saying anyone did!

My, we are touchy!

[mhatrw]

48. You are comparing this to thinking that Osama may not be

the whole story of 9/11 while branding anyone who suspects otherwise "closeminded."

Nice illogic, if you can spin it.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Um, no. Thanks for misrepresenting what I'm saying, though. n/t

[mhatrw]

73. Retreat!

;-)

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Not at all.

I am trying to establish common ground - that some possibilities (and aliens from Alpha Centauri are possibilities right?) can still be dismissed prima facie. We all do it.

[mhatrw]

79. Sure you were. n/t

[silvermachine]

113. Stop covering up THE TRUTH!!!!

Everyone knows that the Pentagon was struck by a turbo-fueled turd, excreted by Bigfoot after he misinterpreted a crucial passage in the chapter on macrobiotic food in the Voynich Manuscript and accidentally gave himself food poisoning. Although there is a school of thought that claims Bigfoot was intentionally given a doctored copy of the Voynich Manuscript by Abdul Alhazred, with the wrong recipe being used to send his colon into a violent spasm, thereby expelling said fecal matter on its deadly course...

[mhatrw]

30. I'm so happy that Maha respects me.

If he didn't resort to facile strawman attack-the-messenger generalizations, I could return the favor.

[greyl]

47. I'm impressed by the outpouring of emotion.

"the very fact that “inside job” culties are incapable of engaging in two-way discussion of September 11 reveals that something other than dispassionate reasoning is going on."

[mhatrw]

50. Were you impressed that blacks were offended by Michael Richards as well?

Did that prove to you that negroes just can't take a joke?

[greyl]

55. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

(Irrelevant is term frequently used in logic)
Are you comparing Webster Tarpley and Judy Wood to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and I?
You need to remember that everyone was offended by Richards' tyrade, not just people on the fringe.

Btw, what color do you assume I am?

[mhatrw]

72. Grey.

And it's perfectly relevant. If you insult a person with a bs attack-the-messenger generalization rather than considering his or her arguments, you should expect an indignant response. It proves nothing except that people don't appreciate others making bs attack-the-messenger generalizations about them.

[greyl]

77. If you aren't an inside job cultist, try not to let it bother you. nt

[mhatrw]

78. Which brings us back to Michael Richards.

If your not a _____, don't let it bother you.

[greyl]

81. Your analogy was never close to appropriate.

It was always a false analogy, and it remains one.

[mhatrw]

83. You only think so because the insult wasn't addressed to you. n/t

[greyl]

95. Oh brother. Is being an inside job cultist a choice?

Are you seriously trying to equate the gravity of the term "nigger" with "inside job cultist"?
See ya.

[mhatrw]

107. Not the gravity. The backtracking technique.

Come on, surely you know that rednecks often explain themselves by shocked non-rednecks by saying, "Of course, not all _____ people are _______" just like you tried to with your "if you're not the bad name I'm calling you, don't be insulted" gambit on this thread.

[greyl]

111. Your posts on this particular topic are increasingly unimpressive.

Don't expect me to answer your questions without you answering mine.

[SidDithers]

80. Thanks for posting, greyl...

that's a good read.

And I love the term "inside job cultists", which I am hereby shortening to the easy to use acronym IJC. Now, I can refer to that very specific subset of CT'ers as IJCers or IJCbots.

Sid

[mhatrw]

84. Because this will facilitate openmindedness.

Right?

[SidDithers]

90. See post 8...nt

Sid

[greyl]

115. no sweat nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

96. The 9/11 Truth movement is close-minded

they REFUSE to even consider the possibility that the WTC never existed. Since the media is controlled by Bushco they could easily fake the images on television. Bushco scientists could probably project the fake towers with holographic projections. Any evidence to the contrary I will label as Bushco lies, and/or tools of the conspiracy because I know the TRUTH!

[MervinFerd]

101. Yes! Holographic Towers! I had a whole thread proving this once.

Somehow it didn't get the same respect as holographic airplanes.

Definitely shows the closed-mindedness of -some- people. Maybe we need to make a DVD and start a web site. Could be money in it.

Now, if only I can get some traction on "Spontaneous Airframe Combustion".